Leila�s notes
Wednesday, 17 May 00
(Godfrey-Lord & Jones, 1968 � Knowing what to do vs knowing how to do it)
IM as strategic self-presentation
AIM (audience): power augmentation through manipulatoin of audience impressions
methods: automated behavioural repertoires, e.g. of ingratiation
meet someone � try to make a good impression
meet 2nd time � told to make an even better impression � emphasising, e.g. competence
no difference between:
1 group � week to prepare
other group � 5 mins
those given instructions were not liked any more than before
those not given any insructions at all were most successful
2 views:
Edward Jones (1990) � experimental social psychologist, influenced by behaviourism
Irving Goffman (1959) � sociology, rooted in symbolic interactionism and social
|
Strategy |
Attribution sought |
Negative attributions. risked |
Emotion to be aroused |
|
ingratiation |
likeable |
sycophant |
affection |
|
intimidation |
dangerous |
blusterer |
fear |
|
self-promotion |
competent |
conceited |
respect |
|
exemplification |
worthy |
sanctimonious |
guilt |
|
supplication |
helpess |
lazy |
nurturance |
ingratiation � harder to detect when false when directed towards us rather than a 3rd party
self-promotion � people not good at this? if so, then everyone would get what they deserve
concerned with social appropriateness of self-presentation
attentive to others as a guide
able to control self-expressions
willing to control these, e.g. deceive
inconsistent from sistuation to situation
conform to views of audience
less concerned with attitudes in deciding how to act
have a variety of specialised activity partners
more concerned with appearance of a date than personality
have more casual sex
opposite
doesn�t like high SMs � thinks that low SMs are more honest, decent, trustworthy
people watching a video of a person to assess whether likeable. some told that the person has been told (given money) to try and make themselves liked
|
high |
told |
less liked |
|
high |
not told |
likeable |
|
low |
told |
no difference |
|
low |
not told |
are low SMs just less perceptive then? �/span> social skill difference
IM as explanation: explaining the situation, the self, the task
� dramatic realisation
� focused gatherings (public places)
� normal appearances
� defining situations (scenery, props, roles etc.)
� difficulities of dramatic realisation
� loss of expressive control (when we fall over, we get embarrassed etc.)
i.e. most of time, we�re not trying to deceive � normal interaction involves role-playing
e.g. it�s why tutor�s rooms have books and lecture theatres have blackboards
and why we dress and behave the way we do � we play a role/part
we dramatise what we do to be understood so that other people don�t think we�re weird
e.g. when we forget something, we don�t just turn around in the street, we gesture etc.
������ firemen � sense of urgency about fire � give them big red trucks
nurses � vigilance � plumping pillows, taking temperatures etc.
N.B. there are cases when the dramatisation can conflict with the goal
self-reported sources of embarrassment (after Miller, 1992)
Individual behaviour
normative public deficiencies (e.g. falling over)
abashed harm-doing
conspicuousness
Interactive behaviour
awkward interactions
team embarrassment
Audience provocation
public teasing/opposition
Bystander behaviour
empathic embarrassment
Function of embarrassment
Leary�s (1995) view: social �pain� promotes efforts towars maintenance???
how spell �Erving Goffman�?